- (1.) The brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer in the year 1994 and had worked on the said post since 07.09.1994 to 24.07.1997 at district Banda and thereafter he has been promoted on the post of Consolidation Officer and had worked since 25.07.1997 to 24.07.2004 at district Azamgarh and in District Hamirpur from 05.07.2008 to 20.05.2012 and in district Lucknow from 21.05.2012 to 25.07.2012 and thereafter he has been further promoted on the post of Settlement Officer consolidation and posted at Allahabad since 26.07.2012 till the passing of the transfer order dated 26.06.2014 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Allahabad to Lalitpur.
(2.) Against the transfer order dated 26.06.2014, the wife of the petitioner, who claims to be an Assistant Teacher in Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Allahabad has made a representation dated 27.06.2014 before the respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, U.P. Lucknow stating therein that she is also a government servant posted in Allahabad, hence in light of Clause 1-D of the transfer policy, the petitioner is entitled to be transferred at the said place and further that the prescribed period under the policy having not expired, it would be a mid term transfer insofar as it relates to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 941 (SB) of 2014 [Matadin Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and others] and the Division Bench of this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 07.07.2014 has passed the following order: "We have heard Sri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. Notice need not be issued to the respondent no.4 in view of the order being passed herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, respondent no.2 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Transfer Policy dated 04.06.2014 filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition provides that when the husband and wife both are government servant then as far as possible they should be transferred at the same place. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been posted as Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Allahabad since past two years and as such in light of the Transfer Policy, the petitioner could not have been transferred prior to expiry of the prescribed period given therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which is a representation made on 27.06.2014 by the wife of the petitioner, who claims to be an Assistant Teacher in Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Allahabad and therefore, submits that when the wife of the petitioner is also a government servant posted in Allahabad, hence in light of Clause 1-D of the transfer policy, the petitioner is entitled to be transferred at the said place and further that the prescribed period under the policy having not expired, it would be a mid term transfer insofar as the petitioner is concerned. We find from the record that the transfer policy has provided that as far as possible the husband and wife, if they are both government servant should be posted at the same place and no representation can be made by the Government Servant against his transfer in light of Clause 14 of the said transfer policy. We are aware that the transfer policy is not enforceable in law however, the transfer policy which has been brought out by the Government is for the benefit of the employee and we find no reason as to why the Authority would not consider the grievance of the wife of the petitioner who also claims to be a government servant. Under such circumstances, we find that the petitioner's wife has already made a representation dated 27.06.2014 filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, hence it would be appropriate that the respondent no.2, Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow should consider the representation of the petitioner's wife in light of the transfer policy dated 04.06.2014 and particularly consider the entitlement of the petitioner in view of Clause 1-D of the said policy. The Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow should consider the representation by passing a reasoned order preferably within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith representation is served upon him. The order so passed, be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. The order impugned shall therefore, be subject to the result of the decision so taken by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by such order he shall have liberty to avail the remedy available to him in law against such decision taken by the Authority. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order is passed as to costs."
(3.) Thereafter the wife of the petitioner through her representation dated 11.07.2014 has served the certified copy of the order dated 07.07.2014 in the office of respondent no. 2, which has been received in the office on 16.07.2014. In the said representation the wife of the petitioner has stated that she is working as Assistant Teacher in Arya Kanya Inter College, Mutthiganj, Allahabad. Her daughter and son are studying in class 11th and 8th respectively. Her father-in-law had died and her mother-in-law aged 85 years is living with her. Her mother-in-law often remains ill and she is also the patient of Thyroid, High Blood Pressure and Depression, therefore, keeping in view the devotion, hard working and honesty of her husband, prays that the transfer of her husband from district Lalitpur be cancelled and if possible he may be posted at Varanasi, Kaushambi or Kanpur.;